Addressing threats to health care's core values, especially those stemming from concentration and abuse of power. Advocating for accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in leadership and governance of health care.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

A Tangled Web of Perversity by a Healthcare Company Owner - Subpoenaing Emails of Law Student Critics at NYU Law School, Where He is a Trustee

At Healthcare Renewal, we are largely calling for removal from healthcare of perverse managers and perverse management practices.

One of those practices is the attempted silencing of critics.

I have first hand experience with a perverse but unsuccessful attempt myself, where the apparently (and IMO, and as protected by the 1st Amendent) megalomaniacal management of a once-reasonable hospital (I did my residency there 1985-7) sought to abridge my 1st Amendment rights regarding care of my late mother. See my August 11, 2013 post "Who Would Have
Thought, Comrades, That The Most Severe Form of Attempted Internet
Censorship Could Originate in a Community Hospital, Abington Memorial,
That Alleges Itself A Non-Profit Public Servant?" at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/08/who-would-have-thought-comrades-that.html.

This recent story, however, is simply stunning in the audacity of its principal regarding "shutting up" critics, this time two law students at a law school of which he is a Trustee:

Law School Trustee's Company Chills Critical
Speech With Subpoena For Students' Personal Emails

A New York University Law trustee's company wants two
students to hand over their personal emails after they circulated a
letter criticizing him, according to a subpoena.

The
law students, second-year Luke Herrine and first-year Leo Gertner,
were targeted after they helped circulate a letter denouncing NYU Law
School trustee Daniel Straus, who owns Care One Management, a home
health aide and nursing home company embroiled in a labor dispute.

The two students started
a petition asking for the removal of Straus from the Board of
Trustees, pointing out that a law school should probably be
associated with someone who respects the law, something Straus'
companies seem to have trouble doing. His two companies, CareOne (http://care-one.com/)and
HealthBridge Management (http://www.healthbridgemanagement.com/), have been cited at least 38 times by the
National Labor Relations Board for violating federal labor laws. In
addition, HealthBridge was held in contempt of court for refusing to
allow 600 workers to return to their jobs at their pre-strike pay
levels.

CareOne spokesperson Deborah Maxson said the deadline
for the requested information is April 25.

“Straus
is not a party to the lawsuit and is not managing the litigation,”
Maxson said.

Straus may not be a party to this lawsuit, but these are his
companies, and there can be very little doubt that Straus would
prefer the ongoing criticism of his business efforts be halted. If
CareOne wants to use the excuse that Straus isn't a "party"
to this lawsuit, then it needs to extend that same courtesy to the
two students, who also aren't a "party" to the ongoing
legal fight.

But they're defenseless students, and in healthcare matters, dissing a high-ranking healthcare management person seems to be a crime that such persons cannot seem to tolerate. (I won't get into the psychopathological issues that may come into play).

Then there's the content sought by the
subpoenas. This, too, mentions Straus directly, even as CareOne
claims this has nothing to do with him. According to a letter sent by
the Board of Trustees to NYU administration, this is what CareOne is
hoping to obtain:

“The subpoenas requested information regarding any
contact the students may have had with SEIU and any activity they may
have engaged in, such as protests or meetings, relating to Mr. Straus
or CareOne...”

If Straus isn't "party" to this lawsuit, why does
CareOne need information relating to Straus? Beyond that, the
information requested bears all the hallmarks of trying to use the
power of the court to silence free speech. Protests and meetings,
both activities covered by the First Amendment, are mentioned
specifically by the subpoena.

Perhaps some members of the generation after the "Greatest generation" have such low self-esteem that they have to bully mere students into submission.

For what it's worth, NYU has
stepped up and has provided the students with the pro bono help of
one of the school's lawyers. It also issued a very carefully-worded
defense of the students, no doubt mindful of Straus' $1.25 million
annual endowment.

“The Law School is not a party to the litigation
between Care One and SEIU, and will remain uninvolved in it,"
the school wrote in a statement to DNAinfo New York sent Thursday.
"We vigorously support the right of our students to express
their views and to organize and participate in lawful demonstrations
and other protest activity, at the same time that we acknowledge that
parties to litigation are permitted, subject to applicable rules and
judicial oversight, to gather evidence in support of their case."

Further statements reiterated NYU's support for its students'
rights but also noted it considered Straus to be an "upright and
honorable person."

That said, it seems that there is a
clear -- and somewhat massive -- conflict of interest for Straus to
remain on the board of trustees at NYU Law at the same time he's
using the legal process to demand the email contents from two of its
students.

Forcing students to turn over emails and other private
communications in litigation that does not concern them can chill
free speech on campus and make students think twice about raising
their voice about controversial issues. This is antithetical to NYU's
mission of open academic inquiry and commitment to the public
interest.

Rather than address these concerns,
Straus is allowing (or directing) his company to shut down his
critics by seeking personal communications from non-party NYU
students. Straus also has additional leverage with the university
should this fail to keep future criticism at bay. Of course, there's
always a chance NYU will side with the students and decide that
Straus' companies don't really reflect the culture it's trying to
instill in its students. But until this all plays out, we're just
witnessing the sort of tactics deployed by entities who would rather
shut
people up than address their concerns.

I note the following statement on the web page of Care One Management:

"With a focus on the highest standards, clinical best practices and
strong management principles, CareOne has developed a reputation as a
premier health care company in New Jersey.

In healthcare, I remind, the "shut people up" mentality results in patient injury and death. It seems to me that this Trustee is not just setting a bad example for the legal profession, but it also throws the management of his healthcare organizations into question.

2 comments:

A strategic law suit against public participation (SLAPP suit) seems to be the weapon of choice to retaliate upon civic minded Americans who oppose moral turpitude within boards/administrations of corporations with regulatory instrumentality. Silence screams that freedom of speech has been terrorized.

Our Tenth Anniversary

The tenth anniversary of Health Care Renewal was December 10, 2014. During our anniversary year, please help Health Care Renewal continue to challenge concentration and abuse of power in health care. Donate to FIRM, the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine, a US 501(c)3 non-profit. All contributions are US tax deductible as provided by US law. Our address is 16 Cutler St, Suite 104, Warren, RI, 02885. Email info at firmfound dot org for questions or comments.

FIRM welcomes support from individuals and non-profit organizations. If you are interested in donating to FIRM, please email info at firmfound dot org, snail mail us at 16 Cutler St, Suite 104, Warren, RI, 02885, USA, or see our web-site

Note that FIRM is a 501(c)3 that researches problems with leadership and governance in health care that threaten core values, and disseminates our findings to physicians, health care researchers and policy-makers, and the public at large. FIRM advocates representative, transparent, accountable and ethical health care governance, and hopes to empower health care professionals and patients to promote better health care leadership.

Health Wonk Review

Policies: Blog Roll and Comments

Our blogroll is meant to include blogs that provide interesting content relevant to what we write. It is not an endorsement in any way of any specific blog.

We accept comments, especially from registered Blogger users. If you do not wish to register with Blogger, we will accept anonymous comments, although prefer that they contain identification of the commenter.

We encourage thoughtful comments relevant to the issues brought up by the posts on Health Care Renewal.

All comments are moderated. We will reject spam, profanity, advertising of products or services not directly related to the content of this blog.

We will reject any unsubstantiated accusations or allegations.

Nonetheless, all comments represent only the opinions of those making them. The appearance of comments does not imply endorsement by the Health Care Renewal bloggers.

Please email general comments about the blog, other concerns, or questions to info AT firmfound DOT org